Should environmental philosophers – or practical conservationists – focus their attentions on particular living creatures, or on the community of which they, and we, are part? The individualist ethos of the United States is reflected in legislation to protect endangered species in which particular species are portrayed as individuals with rights that must be protected. By contrast, the planning of environmental protection in Norway, exemplified by the Samla Plan for the management of water resources, emphasizes the importance of community integrity, (...) where 'community' includes the whole of nature. These differing approaches are considered in the light of moral monism and pluralism, with special reference to Christopher Stone's recent work. Despite their differences, and the reservation that each method inevitably takes a human perspective, it can be hoped that each may contribute to enabling people and political systems to consider nature more seriously. (shrink)

What sets Naess's deep ecology apart from most inquiries into environmental philosophy is that it does not seek a radical shift in fundamental values. Naess offered a utopian, life-affirming grand narrative, a new Weltanschauung that shifted the focus of inquiry to coupling values, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to behavior. The core of Naess's approach is that sustainability hinges on developing more thoroughly reasoned and consistent views, policies, and actions, which are tied back to wide-identifying ultimate norms and a rich, well-informed (...) understanding of the state of the planet. But humans can have multiple ultimate norms and these norms sometimes conflict; our neurobiology may not be well-structured for accommodating consequences that are spatially and temporally separated and uncertain; we are governed by bounded rationality; much of human learning results from the passive modeling of unsustainable activities; and our cultures can be maladaptive, creating hurdles and perverse incentives/disincentives that likely demand more than consistent reasoning from wide-identifying ultimate premises. After keenly demonstrating how problem characterization and formulation shape both solution strategies and outcomes, Naess may conceptualize the process of change too narrowly. In the end, deep ecology helps us to shine a brighter searchlight on the gap between our attitudes and our generally unsustainable actions and policies. In doing so it expands the frontier of the unknown, opening more questions. This is its allure, frustration, and promise. (shrink)